Literature DB >> 31923372

Ovarian Stimulation Is Safe and Effective for Patients with Gynecologic Cancer.

Ruba A Akel1, Xiaoyue M Guo1, Molly B Moravek2, Rafael Confino1, Kristin N Smith1, Angela K Lawson1, Susan C Klock1, Edward J Tanner Iii1, Mary Ellen Pavone1.   

Abstract

Purpose: To compare long-term outcomes of gynecologic cancer patients who pursued controlled ovarian hyperstimulation (COH) for fertility preservation (FP) with those who did not.
Methods: Retrospective cohort, COH, and health outcomes in gynecologic cancer patients; data were analyzed by chi-square test, t-tests, and logistic regression.
Results: Ninety patients with a gynecologic malignancy contacted the FP patient navigator: 45.6% (n = 41) had ovarian cancer, 25.6% (n = 23) endometrial cancer, 18.9% (n = 17) cervical cancer, 5.6% (n = 5) uterine cancer, and 4.4% (n = 4) multiple gynecologic cancers. From this cohort, 32 underwent COH, 43 did not, and 18 pursued ovarian tissue cryopreservation (OTC; 3 patients had both COH and OTC). Median age and type of cancer were not significantly different between the groups. COH patients had a range of 1-35 oocytes retrieved. Days to next cancer treatment in the COH group was 36 days; for those who declined COH, it was 22 days (not significant [NS], p > 0.05). There were two recurrences reported in the stimulation group and four in the no stimulation group (NS). Five deaths were reported, two in the stimulation group, none in the no stimulation group, and three in the OTC group (NS); 34% (n = 11) COH patients returned to use cryopreserved specimens, of which 45% (n = 5) had a live birth.
Conclusion: Although time to next treatment was longer in the group of patients who underwent COH, this did not reach statistical significance. It appears that in selected patients with GYN malignancies, COH for oocyte or embryo cryopreservation is safe, with reasonable stimulation outcomes and no difference in long-term outcomes.

Entities:  

Keywords:  IVF; fertility preservation; gynecologic cancer; oncofertility

Year:  2020        PMID: 31923372      PMCID: PMC7307696          DOI: 10.1089/jayao.2019.0124

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Adolesc Young Adult Oncol        ISSN: 2156-5333            Impact factor:   2.223


  39 in total

Review 1.  Ovarian tissue cryopreservation: a committee opinion.

Authors: 
Journal:  Fertil Steril       Date:  2014-03-28       Impact factor: 7.329

Review 2.  Fertility preservation in female cancer patients: current developments and future directions.

Authors:  S Samuel Kim
Journal:  Fertil Steril       Date:  2006-01       Impact factor: 7.329

3.  Potential indications for ovarian autotransplantation based on the analysis of 5,571 autopsy findings of females under the age of 40 in Japan.

Authors:  Koichi Kyono; Masakazu Doshida; Mayumi Toya; Yuri Sato; Junichi Akahira; Hironobu Sasano
Journal:  Fertil Steril       Date:  2009-10-07       Impact factor: 7.329

Review 4.  Female fertility preservation strategies: cryopreservation and ovarian tissue in vitro culture, current state of the art and future perspectives.

Authors:  M A Filatov; Y V Khramova; M V Kiseleva; I V Malinova; E V Komarova; M L Semenova
Journal:  Zygote       Date:  2016-05-04       Impact factor: 1.442

5.  Cancer statistics, 2015.

Authors:  Rebecca L Siegel; Kimberly D Miller; Ahmedin Jemal
Journal:  CA Cancer J Clin       Date:  2015-01-05       Impact factor: 508.702

6.  Fertility preservation knowledge, counseling, and actions among adolescent and young adult patients with cancer: A population-based study.

Authors:  Margarett Shnorhavorian; Linda C Harlan; Ashley Wilder Smith; Theresa H M Keegan; Charles F Lynch; Pinki K Prasad; Rosemary D Cress; Xiao-Cheng Wu; Ann S Hamilton; Helen M Parsons; Gretchen Keel; Sarah E Charlesworth; Stephen M Schwartz
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2015-07-27       Impact factor: 6.860

7.  Fertility preservation for female cancer patients: early clinical experience.

Authors:  Susan C Klock; John X Zhang; Ralph R Kazer
Journal:  Fertil Steril       Date:  2009-05-05       Impact factor: 7.329

8.  Decision-making about fertility preservation-qualitative data on young cancer patients' attitudes and needs.

Authors:  Verena Ehrbar; Corinne Urech; Judith Alder; Kathrin Harringer; Rosanna Zanetti Dällenbach; Christoph Rochlitz; Sibil Tschudin
Journal:  Arch Womens Ment Health       Date:  2016-01-22       Impact factor: 3.633

Review 9.  Psychological aspects of fertility preservation in men and women affected by cancer and other life-threatening diseases.

Authors:  Sibil Tschudin; Johannes Bitzer
Journal:  Hum Reprod Update       Date:  2009-05-10       Impact factor: 15.610

10.  ACOG Committee Opinion No. 747: Gynecologic Issues in Children and Adolescent Cancer Patients and Survivors.

Authors: 
Journal:  Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2018-08       Impact factor: 7.661

View more
  5 in total

1.  Predictors and outcomes in breast cancer patients who did or did not pursue fertility preservation.

Authors:  Molly B Moravek; Rafael Confino; Angela K Lawson; Kristin N Smith; Ralph R Kazer; Susan C Klock; William J Gradishar; Jacqueline S Jeruss; Mary Ellen Pavone
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res Treat       Date:  2021-01-04       Impact factor: 4.872

2.  Developing a validated nomogram for predicting ovarian metastasis in endometrial cancer patients: a retrospective research.

Authors:  Peishu Liu; Xiaolei Zhang; Xiaodie Liu; Yaohai Wu
Journal:  Arch Gynecol Obstet       Date:  2021-09-08       Impact factor: 2.344

3.  Disposition preferences in oocyte preservation patients.

Authors:  Anne P Hutchinson; Shweta Hosakoppal; Kathryn A Trotter; Rafael Confino; John Zhang; Susan C Klock; Angela K Lawson; Mary Ellen Pavone
Journal:  J Assist Reprod Genet       Date:  2022-05-19       Impact factor: 3.357

4.  Abnormal Elevation of Anti-Mullerian Hormone and Androgen Levels Presenting as Granulosa Cell Tumor.

Authors:  Hongbin Chi; Ning Huang; Huamao Liang; Rong Li; Congrong Liu; Jie Qiao
Journal:  Front Oncol       Date:  2021-03-22       Impact factor: 6.244

5.  Patients undergoing elective and oncofertility preservation respond similarly to controlled ovarian stimulation for fertility preservation.

Authors:  Ariane Tieko Frare Kira; Marta Ribeiro Hentschke; Natália Fontoura de Vasconcelos; Talita Colombo; Vanessa Devens Trindade; Alvaro Petracco; Bartira Ercília Pinheiro da Costa; Mariangela Badalotti
Journal:  JBRA Assist Reprod       Date:  2022-08-04
  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.